[Editor's Note: The Conversations is a monthly feature in which Jason Bellamy and Ed Howard discuss a wide range of cinematic subjects: critical analyses of films, filmmaker overviews, and more. Readers should expect to encounter spoilers.]

JASON BELLAMY: America's relationship with Star Trek began before man ever set foot on the moon. Gene Roddenberry's creation was born in 1966 and lasted three seasons on TV before dying of low ratings in 1969. Forty years, endless reruns, four live-action TV series and 10 feature films later, Star Trek is alive and well in the pop culture. In just a few days, on May 8, the crew of the starship Enterprise—Kirk, Spock, Bones, Scotty, Uhura, Sulu and Chekov—will hit the big screen yet again in an origin story directed by J.J. Abrams. Star Trek, as the film is simply called, is perhaps the most anticipated movie of the spring. And though its arrival is hardly a surprise in this era of remakes and retreads, the brand's longevity is nonetheless impressive.

From 1987-2005, there was some form of modern Star Trek on TV. The Next Generation (1987-94) begat Deep Space Nine (1993-99), which begat Voyager (1995-2001), which begat Enterprise (2001-05). All of these series can be traced back to the 1966 pilot that started it all, but it's safe to say that none of these series would have been possible without the varied yet undeniable success of Star Trek at the cinema. From 1979-91, six Star Trek films were released featuring the recognizable cast and characters of the original TV series. Almost two decades later, these films are cherished by some ("Trekkies" or "Trekkers"), mocked by others and seemingly ignored by everyone else.

Ed, I have invited you to join me in boldly going where so many have gone before, to those first six Star Trek films. Over the course of our discussion, I'd like to explore the factors that make Star Trek beloved and belittled. I'd like to figure out whether Star Trek gets too much respect or not enough. I'd like to debate the series' impact on cinema. And I'd like to forecast what a successful Abrams adaptation might look like. But let's begin at the beginning. Tell me: Prior to rewatching the first six Star Trek films, what was your relationship to those films and to the overall brand? Which of these films had you seen, and how long had it been since you'd seen them? What was your stored impression of Star Trek cinema up until a few weeks ago, and what is it now?

ED HOWARD: I've never had much of a personal connection to any of the Star Trek films or TV series. Growing up, I was always more of a Star Wars kid—not that one need be just a Star Wars kid or just a Star Trek kid, I don't think. Or is there some kind of Beatles vs. Rolling Stones type competitiveness between these two venerable sci-fi institutions? But anyway, it was Star Wars that I watched obsessively over and over again on worn VHS tapes, and Star Wars that I was into so intensely that I eventually branched out into the many semi-canonical books based on George Lucas' universe and characters, some of them surprisingly great, most unsurprisingly trash, but all of them devoured by nerdy me. To put it another way: as a kid, I could've told you a lot about Wookies and Bothans but very little about Klingons.

To the extent that I was aware of Star Trek, it was as some peripheral thing, that other big sci-fi series. I saw a few of the movies—I know I at least saw The Wrath of Khan—and I've caught random episodes of all the various TV shows at one point or another. I remember some stuff about the Borg (was that Next Generation?), who I thought were pretty cool villains. I remember the famous kitschy/sexy/ridiculous green lady (Yvonne Craig) from the original series, and got a kick out of catching her again on a rerun not too long ago. But my interest in Star Trek has never been what you'd call serious. Watching these first six films for this conversation, I was seeing most of them for the first time, and even with the ones I'd seen before, my memories of them were so hazy that it might as well have been the first time.

So that's the story of my (lack of) relationship with these films prior to this conversation. Now in a very condensed period of time I've seen the first six Star Trek films. So in theory I'm far better versed in this universe than I was before. But I can't shake the feeling that if you ask me again in a few months, I'll be more or less back to where I was before. There's something ephemeral about these films, something insubstantial, like they'll all just melt away once I stop thinking about them. Maybe it's because they're so thoroughly rooted in this weird nostalgia for the original series, a nostalgic feeling that I can't say I really share. Each of the films has an extended montage, some of them longer and more insufferable than others, in which the camera caresses the glistening surface of the starship Enterprise with fetishistic glee, like a horny dude ogling a naked centerfold or a mid-life crisis case polishing the chrome on his sports car. In the first film, it feels like it takes 20 minutes for everyone to stop just gawking at the damn ship in disbelief. It's a strange experience to watch these films with all these obvious nostalgic cues—the crew reassembling for each new mission, the familiar faces being highlighted, the bombastic music whenever the ship first appears, the obscure nods to episodes of the TV series—and to realize that I'm not in on the reminiscences of the intended audience.

So I watched these films, and some of them I enjoyed, and some of them I could have gone my whole life without ever subjecting myself to, but all of them gave me the feeling that I was watching something not really made with me in mind. That is, they all seem to be aimed very specifically at an audience of fans who had adored the original series and would now follow the movies as though they were just really long TV episodes. Some of them even begin with a "previously on Star Trek" synopsis of the previous movie before jumping into the action. I'm sure you can already tell, but I haven't exactly become a converted Trekkie now that I've caught up with these movies. There's a lot to like in this series, and one or two of them I'd actually call, somewhat grudgingly, good movies, but on the whole nothing I've seen here has substantially improved my perceptions of the pop culture phenomenon I mostly ignored as a kid and will be happy to resume ignoring as an adult.

I believe the reason Robert Wise was so off his game in keeping ST:TMP concise was because in this instance, he had little creative control.

The original film began production as the flagship series for Barry Diller's Paramount Network, a dream he would ultimately realize when he launched the Fox network. Costumes, sets, scripts, and the like were created for this series which bore more of a resemblance to Next Generation with Kirk serving in more of a mentor capacity to Decker (Riker) and Ilia (Troi) as the ship's empath. Nimoy had turned down the series, so he would be replaced by Xon (Data), a Vulcan who sought to understand humans better by emulating their emotional responses. Once Star Wars became a success, the series idea was scrapped, and the decision to turn it into a movie had some unexpected consequences. A large amount of money had been spent on the series concept already, so it was absorbed into the film's budget. The studio execs ordered all effects sequences to be shown in their entirety (no massaging or cutting them down for pace) because they wanted to see all the money that was spent on the screen.

Wise didn't even have enough time to tweak the ambient bridge audio in time to make the release date, and so the bridge scenes often seem even more ponderous without the proper atmosphere. Wise revisited the film upon its release on DVD and corrected, tweaked, and tightened up a great deal of the film then.

Turning to the subject of the remainder of the films, my biggest criticism is how after the success of Star Trek II and IV, many of the films tried to recapture the "magic" of those by trying to imitate their respective formulas. Kruge, Sybok, Chang, and in the NG films, Soran, the Borg Queen, Ru'Afo, and Shinzon (even Nero in the latest one), seem like lame attempts to duplicate the charisma of Khan. The time travel aspect of IV has become de rigeur in just about every movie since Generations, again including the latest film.

While acknowledging that the "mission" aspect has always just been a MacGuffin for Kirk and Co., I would like to see some of the elasticity Matt mentioned earlier in regards to the stories. Part IV demonstrated how every so often, you can have a Star Trek comedy. First Contact has many horror elements. Let's get back to the wide ranging villains and genres that Star Trek dabbled in originally.Posted by Tony Dayoub on 2009-05-04 21:40:00

I've really enjoyed this conversation, from Ed and Jason's near disdain that kicked it off to the Trekkies' love emerging in the comments. Thank you all.

I come at the series and movies from somewhere in the middle. I was a little kid -- grade school -- when the original series came out, and loved it. Then my friends and I made a near-daily ritual of catching reruns after school in our teens. We were fans, I'd say, but not nuts.

Even so, when the movies started coming out, my college roommate (a friend from high school) and I were stoked. We hated "The Motion Picture" of course, both as Trek appreciators and film appreciators, but that didn't stop us from lining up for Khan too and comparing notes over the years on most of the rest.

I didn't see all the movies, and I have no desire to go back now and re-watch them as prep for the new release. It's not necessary, for one thing, in terms of following the story, and as you've reminded me all too well there's not enough style or substance in any of the pictures to call for multiple viewings.

In fact I hadn't even planned on going to see "Star Trek" in the theater. I saw a snippet of a commercial for it on TV and caught a glimpse of a big monster thing chasing characters through the snow or sand or something. Jeez, I said to girlfriend Michelle, that looks like something out of "Lost," a show we mock but watch. I had no idea of the Abrams connection until reading your discussion, so now that makes some sense.

The tagline, "Not your father's Star Trek," seemed aimed at me. In the wrong way. I am that father, and I liked Shatner's Kirk and the weekly Spock-Bones brains-emotion riff and the sorry fate of those poor red-shirt guys and all the rest. So if it's not my Star Trek, I figured, it's just another movie and one I can probably take a pass on.

But now, after reading this fun discussion and seeing the full trailer for the first time yesterday before "State of Play," I'm thinking I'll probably give it a shot.

You guys, in your backhanded way, ended up selling a ticket. So thanks, I think.Posted by Mark on 2009-05-04 16:18:00

"They're all shot on film and shown in cinemas, yes, but is there anything aesthetically cinematic about their style, their cinematography, their approach to this material?"

Ed, well said - that's the Star Trek movies in a nutshell. Their sole purpose seems to be merely to bring THE CHARACTERS back together - and to produce the "nostalgia and sentimentality factor" that Jason speaks of. I know this for a fact. My wife and her two siblings are very fervent Trekkers (they prefer that moniker over Trekkies), and they pretty much dislike the content of the films other than that they enjoy seeing THE CHARACTERS interacting with each other. You see, to them Star Trek is about Kirk, McCoy, and Spock and the relationships between them. When I say my favorite episode is "Galileo 7" - a survival story full of action and shooting - I get smirks. You see, they like the episodes about emotions and relationships. Where the films achieve that - they like them.

Ed and Jason -

Your analyses of these films are tremendous. Great job. I saw all of them in theaters with my wife and your assessments of their quality or lack thereof are right on. You have inspired me to re-watch Undiscovered Country, which I only vaguely remember.

Oh, I also really enjoyed your images - two of which were interesting as far as serendipity. In the Winchell's Donut image - I am standing under the sign with my wife and her sister. You see, my wife and I were living in San Francisco when they filmed IV. Also, the image of Spock in the vehicle and Kirk outside - that was shot at the Marina and I saw the Marina scenes shot as well.Posted by hokahey on 2009-05-04 15:15:00

an episode set on the Klingon homeworldThe was actually talk of a Klingon based ST spinoff. I think it was dropped as the Trek franchise was already getting watered down at the time.Posted by Matt Maul on 2009-05-04 13:04:00

I could talk about Star Trek all day (and I have!) but I'll just interject that probably the best thing to come out of ST:TMP was Jerry Goldsmith's awesome Klingon theme.

Alright, I gotta add two more things now: I always thought they really missed a bet by making each new Trek show more or less mimic the format of the original series (i.e. Starfleet crew on some kind of space voyage.) You've got this huge, fascinating fictional universe--show us more of it! The closest they ever came was Deep Space Nine, but...

I suspect two great Trek TV series could have been, A: one in which each episode simply looked at a differant part of the TrekVerse: an episode set on the Klingon homeworld, an episode at Starfleet Command, an episode at Starfleet Academy, one on Vulcan, ect...Sort of "Lower Decks: The Series".

And b: A series that tells the saga of The Eugenics wars, showing Khan's rise and fall, with Khan as the Milton's Lucifer-type tragic antihero.Posted by JJ on 2009-05-03 14:40:00

Joel,

Unlike "pure" sci-fi, ST was never shy about playing fast and loose with the laws of physics (or just plain ignoring them) for drama's sake. For instance, the transporters were just an easy way to plop characters onto that week's planet without having to waste time and money shooting a ship landing.

So, re: the wormhole....

A staple on ST was showing bridge personnel go flying whenever the Enterprise got rocked sideways. Technically, this really shouldn't happen as all momentum would be neutralized in a FTL ship equipped with the artificial gravity system that would be needed to keep crew members from splattering on the viewscreen everytime it came out of warp. BTW, I had this same problem with the finale of Battlestar Galatica when the ship crashing into the Cylon base caused everyone to lunge forward.

One of the things I had read during the lead up tp ST:TMP's release, was that technical experts were supposedly consulted to keep the science used in the story more honest. Hence the light trail and starburst whenever the Enterprise went into warp. So, I think the wormhole scene was an attempt at a more accurate version of the tumbling bridge. I'm not defending it. Just commenting.

Regarding Wise's apparent love affair with the Enterprise...I think the LONG shuttle pass over the ship as Kirk comes aboard was just one of the many misguided efforts in ST:TMP to kiss up to the long-suffering Trekkies as a reward for buying tickets.

I suppose one could argue that the lengthy examination of the Enterprise is a bookend to the lengthy examination of V'Ger later on. But that's giving them WAYYYY too much credit. :)Posted by Matt Maul on 2009-05-03 05:00:00

Joel: "Is it just me or isn't it a sci-fi convention that the first time the Big Whatzit Technology is enabled, it's attended to with a long, drawnout melodrama of goofy camera effects and overacting that is never attributed to it again?"Strange that Robert Wise took "Star Trek" far more seriously than "Star Trek" ever did.Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2009-05-03 00:21:00

Two observations that came to mind as I read your conversation:

Shatner as an "actor:" As someone who spent many years using TJ Hooker as a punchline, it's hard to respect Shatner's "acting ability" today but I will acknowledge that his self-awareness of his own campy history as a Thespian has opened him up to a broader range of over-expression.

"Then again, I do seriously question whether the ridiculous warp sequence in the first movieâ€”during which everything becomes distorted by wavy lines and everyone's speech is slowed and slurredâ€”was ever considered top-of-the-line filmmaking."

Is it just me or isn't it a sci-fi convention that the first time the Big Whatzit Technology is enabled, it's attended to with a long, drawnout melodrama of goofy camera effects and overacting that is never attributed to it again?

Whether it's Star Trek:TMP's Warp drive, BSG's FTL, Starblazer's Wave Motion system, Star Wars' "jump to Hyperspace," etc., all of these technologies go from being a Momentous and Dangerous Unknown to narrative banality after their first usage.

It's the Wilhelm scream of sci-fi narrative. Everyone has to use it because everyone has used it.Posted by Joel E on 2009-05-02 18:22:00

Matt Maul: "...the movies always seemed to take on the feel of one of those dreadful two-parters from ANY TV series where, to change things up, the writers have the characters go on vacation."

I'd actually say that the genius of the show's initial conception was that following a set cast on their far-flung adventures changes things up every week, the sci-fi element allowing even more variety than such precedents as Wagon Train or Route 66. (The latter, to be fair, I'm just guessing, never having seen it.) The show's mood could be as mutable as Matt Seitz praises because its look was as well. The setting can be an eerily abandoned space station or a bustling, pre-industrial town, brightened up for a light-hearted comic outing or grimly shadowed to provide the backdrop for allegorical playacting.

Just jumping off a passing comment of yours, and looking forward to your defense of the only Star Trek film that I can't remember a single thing about.Posted by Bruce Reid on 2009-05-01 21:17:00

Matt,

Hair very well split. I suppose the need for a full complement of trained crewmembers is just as important as an engineering chamber heaped with dilithium crystals :)

I'd rather see a Trek story focused on the characters in which the mission is downplayed or barely evident than one where the mission -- and the puzzle-box solution to the problem -- takes center stage. I'll end my marginal musings as we're in total agreement here.

I suppose another way to say my original point (how I missed the "missions" in the films) would be (and this is something I say in the aforementioned ST3 piece) that, to me, the movies always seemed to take on the feel of one of those dreadful two-parters from ANY TV series where, to change things up, the writers have the characters go on vacation. I realize that in ST's case this was an aspect of how much time had past between the series and the movies. But, that's still how I reacted to them.

And regarding ST3, to paraphrase Kirk from Undiscovered Country: "I've never really liked The Wrath of Khan, and I never will" :)Posted by Matt Maul on 2009-05-01 20:41:00

For all the discussion about nostalgia coloring the appreciation of the Star Trek movies--undoubtedly true--I think it's interesting that clear fan-favorite Wrath of Khan indulges in it the least. Both in highlighting the cast's age and in completely redesigning the TV series's baroque riot of colors and textures (which the first movie had attempted to update) to a muted naval mode. It's possibly the least like the series of any movie--despite being a sequel to one episode and borrowing the same submarine battle template of another.

And I have to agree with Matt; there's simply no way that a film as deliberate and efficiently composed as 2 doesn't count as "aesthetically cinematic". Its lack of affect is its meaning, clarity being what Kirk must achieve in acknowledging his need for spectacles (and loss--marvelous how the dying engineer's blood stains the captain's jacket) and what Khan abandons when he pursues his foe into the nebula, the viewscreen as static-laden and indistinct as the vistas obscured by the sandstorms that howled on his prison planet.

The other movies plug along in their more or less amiable way without ever striking any new notes. Even the fish-out-of-water gags in Voyage Home don't top anything from "City on the Edge of Forever" or that engagingly daft episode with an entire planet of '30s Chicago gangsters.Posted by Bruce Reid on 2009-05-01 19:36:00

Matt: Well, since we're cheerfully splitting hairs here, except for Star Trek III, most of the original-cast Star Trek movies started with some kind of a mission, however perfunctory (including Star Trek II, which starts out as a training mission). The first and fourth movies did seem like sort of the same film in that respect, drastically different tone aside. Granted, the films weren't as focused on the mission as stated in the credits of the original series.

I agree that the character-rich episodes were framed within the context of the mission, but the mission itself was never really the point -- just a means to get into the dynamics of the crew and the personality traits of certain characters. Which is as it should have been. I'd rather see a Trek story focused on the characters in which the mission is downplayed or barely evident than one where the mission -- and the puzzle-box solution to the problem -- takes center stage. The former type of stories tended to resonate even if the execution was mediocre, whereas even the most efficient examples of the latter tended to leave me a bit cold. (But that's just me.)Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2009-05-01 19:22:00

Matt (and Sam),

I just read your qualification, but for S and G's will take issue with the notion that "the mission was often a crutch for some unimaginative, uninvolving storytelling." I say this mainly because the mission aspect of the Enterprise was something I did miss in the movies.

Matt, your point is well taken if you're referring to one of the many mediocre to bad Trek episodes where Kirk outwits a global computer using good old human horse sense.

BUT, and perhaps I'm arguing in the margins here (my favorite place to be), for many of the great Trek outings, the idea of the "mission" was the framework upon which those character "idiosyncrasies, neuroses and buried aspirations" could be explored.

Two examples:

"City on the Edge of Forever" - Spock comments that the time portal could be used for information gathering (their mission). After he is able to set things right, with tragic results, a distraught Kirk is asked by the time portal if he'd like to do some more exploring. He simply replies "Let's get the hell out of here." This is pointedly and directly in conflict with his charter (and mission) as captain.

"Mirror, Mirror" - to continue their mission, the Federation needs fuel. That's why the Enterprise crew find themselves negotiating with the Halkan Council. The parallel universe Kirk and the landing party ends up in does allow for an exploration of their characters. BUT, it also represents a universe where the audience is allowed a glimpse of an Enterprise thatâ€™s on a totally DIFFERENT mission.Posted by Matt Maul on 2009-05-01 19:00:00

Hey, Tony & Matt and anybody else who wants to bring the original show into this discussion -- maybe the smartest thing to do is just get the ball rolling here in the comments thread and make the whole thing "of a piece," since the films being discussed here are continuations of the series anyway.

Sam: I fear I didn't express myself precisely enough. What I meant (jumping off from Anonymous' comment at the top of this thread) was that the "premise" of the show, articulated in the opening voice-over about exploring new life and new civilizations, wasn't really reflected in any of the movies starring the original cast, but that was OK with me. Too often on the original series (particularly in the last season-and-a-half, as the budgets got cut and the writers started treading water a bit) the scripts had a Mad Lib quality, telling the same story over and over but changing the details. Planet adopts characteristics of a particular period of Earth history; society trapped inside some kind of cultural or physical bubble has to break out of it and live in reality, a la Adam and Eve in genesis; super-powerful creatures play God with the Enterprise crew, tormenting them until (as Harlan Ellison and "Futurama" brilliantly satirized) the God figure is revealed to be insane, a child or both. Etc., etc.

That said, "Star Trek" managed to escape the treadmill-to-boredom that afflicted most network shows made up through the early 90s, and that's no small accomplishment. The Spock-centric episodes in particular attain an emotional gravity and thematic seriousness that transcend the series itself; I get into this in the video essay I just finished on Spock for the L Magazine (which I hope will go up soon). Spock is the Othello of Star Trek, a character whose tormented complexity makes the rest of the characters, however appealing, seem rather thin in comparison.Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2009-05-01 18:34:00

Every time I catch a bit of the first Star Trek movie on TV all I can think of is how baffling it is that the man behind The Set Up directed it. Talk about a man who should've been well aware of the effects of economy. As much as I loved The Voyage Home as a kid, none of these films really hold up under any type of scrutiny as I share Ed's resistance to camp humor. Although that God head sounds pretty interesting...Posted by Joshua on 2009-05-01 18:23:00

Shatner's "overacting"? It's called style, son, and some guys have it.

More seriously, I think the ST series and movies have weathered the aging of the original audience into critical maturity (or adulthood, at least) exceptionally badly, perhaps even worse than the Star Wars movies, which is saying something.Posted by Rasselas on 2009-05-01 17:00:00

This is as definitive a discussion of this entertainment phenomenon than any yet posed, and with the newest film opening it's timing is impeccable.

The most compelling "hook" of the original series is the character of Spock, and it's inherent emotional intrigue. The original series was of course character driven, and the failure of the first film, STAR TREK THE MOTION PICTURE can be easily traced to an inability to probe into personality/behavioral insights, that made the debut series so fascinating for so many, from grammar school kids to college professors. I dare say Mr. Seitz is right on the money by tabbing 2,4 and 6 are the best of the films, and that 2 is the most popular with the Trekkies, in large measure because of its charismatic villian, who previously starred in SPACE SEED, one of the show's favorite episodes.

However, in keeping with this theory I do not agree with Mr. Seitz that the most enduring shows--"Amok Time," "City and the Edge of Forever," "Mirror Mirror" "The Menagerie," "This Side of Paradise," "Shore Leave," "Amok Time," "Journey to Babel" and others should be referred to as "ilk" or a "violation of the mission." These are the episodes, truth be said, that propelled the show to levels of international adoration never approached then or since, and they contain the show's best writing and most profound insights.

Hence the fact that the first movie "did away with that obligation" was most bothersome for me as it discarded what was truly meaningful for what was standard and flavorless sci-fi trappings.

But of course "to each is own" is a fair enough conclusion, methinks.Posted by Sam Juliano on 2009-05-01 16:48:00

Matt and Tony,

I was a ST fan when the prospect of a cartoon series was the most exciting thing a Trekkie could hope for.

The zenith of my fandom occurred, I think, while purchasing tickets for Star Trek 1. The film versions never really worked for me.

Interestingly, my favorite of all the original cast Trek films and the one that still somewhat holds up for me is 3. In fact, I'm actually in the process of writing up a review of Search for Spock (honest Keith) right now :)

I'm not sure if I'll convince anyone, but I found it closest to the feel of the original series as any of the outings. The first one was just too over produced to compete with Star Wars (although, lately I've come to appreciate Wise's direction more and more). And, alas, the drama in 2 struck me as so forced that, unlike Saavik, I didn't have a tear in my eye at the end.

It's perhaps also worth noting that I enjoy ALL of the Trek films, including the NG series, much more when viewing them on TV.Posted by Matt Maul on 2009-05-01 14:40:00

Hey guys,

"It's a strange experience to watch these films with all these obvious nostalgic cues... and to realize that I'm not in on the reminiscences of the intended audience."

As a diehard Trekkie for 33 years, it was enlightening to hear an outside perspective from Ed that helps me understand why these films fail to light everyone's fire. It is difficult to catch this when you are well-versed in the Trek lore.

"If the special effects of these Star Trek pictures is now reminiscent of "some kid carrying a toy spaceship across a piece of cardboard painted black" (and I don't disagree), will it even take until 2021 before the then-state-of-the-art effects of the Rings movies begins to look like crude cartoons?

Is it that these Star Trek films haven't aged well, or were they only mediocre to begin with?"

With the exception of Star Trek V, I can assure Jason that, at the time, these were cutting-edge effects being created by ILM (Star Trek II's Genesis sequence was the first use of CGI in a mainstream film). Shatner had problems budgeting his movie effectively, and had little money left for effects after spending it on location shooting instead. But the years have not been kind to the effects, and it's notable that now, the fifth's movie's effects don't look much worse than any of the others.

"Also: If you gents aren't Trekked out, I'd love to see/participate in a discussion of the original series..."

If you guys are Trekked out, I'd love to participate, since I'm revisiting the series on Blu-ray now.Posted by Tony Dayoub on 2009-05-01 12:04:00

Also: If you gents aren't Trekked out, I'd love to see/participate in a discussion of the original series, which had a pretty weak batting average overall (I'd say only a third of the episodes are solid and hold up) but which managed to cover a pretty wide range of moods and modes. Any series that can produce both "The Trouble with Tribbles" and "Amok Time" is a series worth taking seriously, if only from the standpoint of storytelling craft and the elasticity of a good TV format.Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2009-05-01 11:41:00

The only "Star Trek" movies that bear up under repeat viewing are 2, 4 and 6 -- mostly 2, which I think is close to perfect for what it is (an extension of a popular TV series that can also stand on its own as an entertaining, affecting story). I'd disagree that the series has little or no value as cinema; I recently re-watched some of the films (avoiding 3, which as you note is an elaborate exercise in getting the franchise out of the corner it had painted itself into with Spock's death) and 5 (which is just flat-out awful), and I was pleasantly surprised to see that the films are efficiently, sometimes thoughtfully assembled. Two and Six particularly (both directed by Nicholas Meyer) are models of old-school storytelling, particularly the compositions; the camera is almost always exactly where it needs to be in order to express a thought or feeling, which sounds like faint praise until one realizes how few big-budget Hollywood movies made today attempt a style so deliberate. (Think of that great shot near the end of 2 of Spock standing up in the engine room and straightening the hem of his coat; it's a wide shot, Spock in the background seen head-to-toe through the glass, Kirk frame left with his back to us, the audience looking over his shoulder at the horrific scene).

I don't mind that the series strayed from the show's "mission," because having re-watched most of the original three seasons, it seems to me that the mission was often a crutch for some unimaginative, uninvolving storytelling. The best episodes are the ones that play on the idiosyncrasies, neuroses and buried aspirations of the Enterprise crewmembers -- stories like "City on the Edge of Forever," "Amok Time," "Shore Leave," "Journey to Babel," "Mirror, Mirror" and their ilk. The five-year mission, the Prime Directive and so forth were only of interest (to me) inasmuch as they revealed something about the characters. That the first movie series largely did away with that obligation doesn't bother me in the slightest.Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2009-05-01 11:37:00

As a matter of vague interest, the first film is -- until the end of the summer -- the most financially successful of the series by an inflation-adjusted $100M+. (It also did twice as well as any of the other films overseas, where Star Trek had no significant fan presence.)

As a fan I consider all the films automatic failures as none of them follow from the actual premise. Why did I keep going back to the theater? Same reason I watched the TV show in the first place. Hope. Which I now realize was in Pandora's box because it belonged there.Posted by Anonymous on 2009-05-01 05:38:00